Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

H.B.M.C. wrote:MajorTom:

In all seriousness, you need to take that design of yours to Chapterhouse and the other Third Party groups to see who can make the parts.

Your 'shop job is great. I'd buy that model in a heartbeat. Get someone to make it for all us shlubs who don't know how to convert with plasticard.

MajorTom11 wrote:I think I might, it would be a fun project to work on, and honestly if it makes you guys happy I would be glad to do it. Let's see what happens! In any case though, very grateful for the reception and kind words.

+1 billion, please!

MajorTom11:

Great work!

MajorTom11 wrote:This would be my take on it

This is what the Stormraven should have been IMO.

I'm still not convinced that is what the actual stormraven looks like, it looks like a major step backwards from the quality of other recent GW kits.

I want to like Tom's, but I just can't.
It doesn't look like, to me at least, what the Stormraven's supposed to be.

A bristling with armament flying tank that can have a Dreadnought strapped to a magnetic clamp in the rear.

Oh, there is room for a dreadnaught, trust me (assuming there is room for a dread on the back of the original anyways)

back and bottom are open-air

MajorTom11 wrote:Oh, there is room for a dreadnaught, trust me (assuming there is room for a dread on the back of the original anyways)

back and bottom are open-air

That's kind of the point I was making.

With GW's design, the rear? It has nothing but space where a Dreadnought can be clamped on, likely with multiple clamps even. It keeps it out of the way of the engine, and what's more...the Stormraven's body would shield it from incoming fire from the front, just like the Dread would shield the Stormraven's fragile looking spar bit from incoming fire from below/the rear.

And I really do, personally, like the Stormraven having the turreted Lascannon. Direct control of a dedicated gunner who can alter his fire as necessary, and getting a 225 degree(180 degrees horizontally; 45 degrees vertically) field of fire is far, far, far more useful than just tacking them on either side of the cockpit.

chaos0xomega wrote:

MajorTom11 wrote:This would be my take on it

This is what the Stormraven should have been IMO.

I'm still not convinced that is what the actual stormraven looks like, it looks like a major step backwards from the quality of other recent GW kits.

I would laugh if GW stole this idea. But I would also be pissed

So Major Tom, send that design into Chapterhouse yet?



How bout now?


Seriously dude, DOOO EEEEET!

Lol, well just make sure if you see a 'Major Tom' pattern SR kit out there it has the official Major Tom stamp of approval! lol

I will look into it though, if only to make Alphy happy, he did ask a billion times afterall!

The Mk.II 'Thomas' Pattern Stormraven.

When the AdMech found the SCT for it they were very happy. Improvements over the Mk.I 'Ward' Pattern Stormraven were:

1. No turret (Marine gunners in the original turret were especially vulnerable to incoming fire and to ridicule from passers by).
2. Actually capable of flight.
3. Ability to move around without tipping over.
4. A tail that played some role in its ability to manoeuvre.
5. Logical construction.
6. Missiles that didn't have the word 'Blood' in them.

This design was accepted by the other Chapters, and they were happy to let the Blood Angels keep their Mk.I's.

Ahem... I'm pretty sure a Blood Angel discovered the Thomas pattern lol! I say we give the Mark 1's to the Space Sharks or something.

Or anyone who wants them of course!

I say do it.

And to think I started this off by asking for the stormraven photoshpped without the turret.

Am i crazy for liking either one?
Toms looks like it would actually fit 10 marines o_O
A dread? maybe sideways up the SR's back end? lol
looks great tho, and i wish people wouldn't whine so much about the GW one. It's just annoying

If you edited the way the wings are on MajorTom's storm raven (flip them inwards, like the arvus) and took off the guns you would get a really good utility lander

I agree... There is a ton of potential for the kit for all kinds of things. It's a shame a lot of people don't like converting, or it would have probably been a more exciting release. I guess it's the out of the box crowd that are most dissapointed. Still, it is hard to deny the general consensus. If you do strongly like it, annoying complaints from the others aside, in the end you are the lucky ones!

major tom pattern is the best i've seen so far. I was going to make a horn pattern and probably still will for general use for a guard lander but this by and far a brilliant looking ship for the marines. I was thinking it would look better if you put a second fuselage behind the first and this has got it. I think the tail might be a possibility still if it where done similar to the thunder hawk.


If you want to you could easily arvus lighterize the production model stormraven, somebody shopped this pic in one of the of the many storm raven threads, can't find it anymore, sorry photoshopper.

MajorTom11 wrote:...
4. Do not install slowed tail lol, if there is a gap left, simply fill with plasticard again

I think it needs a tail to tie it in aesthetically with the Thunderhawk. Just not the slowed thing it came with.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Mk.II 'Thomas' Pattern Stormraven.

How about "Didymus"... the greek for Thomas.

Tail is doable for sure, even the one it cones with if you like it, just not a big fan of anything that adds to the height of the fuselage which is already a double or triple decker.

I would consider for my own possibly adding twin tails at the back, very short, possibly linked together like a land speeder tail to keep marine design elements.

I still vote for tomahawk pattern. You might consider putting a twin tail on top of the engines. Dunno if that is any good.

MajorTom11 wrote:Ahem... I'm pretty sure a Blood Angel discovered the Thomas pattern lol! I say we give the Mark 1's to the Space Sharks or something.

Or anyone who wants them of course!

Hey, don't foist those awful things on us. I'd much rather have one of your version, but (and this is my only complaint) I don't like the thrusters on the nose. It may make more sense, but it really breaks the flow of the model for me. If one was to leave those off, I'd love it. I think the main problem that I had with the chibihawk and like about your version is that the back is enclosed. With the back open, the model just looks ridiculous.

Sarrazon wrote:

MajorTom11 wrote:Ahem... I'm pretty sure a Blood Angel discovered the Thomas pattern lol! I say we give the Mark 1's to the Space Sharks or something.

Or anyone who wants them of course!

Hey, don't foist those awful things on us. I'd much rather have one of your version, but (and this is my only complaint) I don't like the thrusters on the nose. It may make more sense, but it really breaks the flow of the model for me. If one was to leave those off, I'd love it. I think the main problem that I had with the chibihawk and like about your version is that the back is enclosed. With the back open, the model just looks ridiculous.

Doesn't look ridiculous there, does it?

An "enclosed back" means more time spent on the ground loading/offloading the Dreadnought, which is a big and heavy load to carry.
More time on the ground=more time vulnerable and less time providing fire support.

At least, that's my take on it. A single set of calipers with a magnetic locking mechanism makes it a stable platform to carry the Dreadnought and allow for the quickest deployment/recovery possible.

Indeed, and if this were real life we were discussion from a tactical perspective, I would prefer the open back. However, we're talking about the wonderful world of warhamz, so I will sacrifice some of my theoretical effectiveness for the aesthetics of the model. And that's just my choice - if you like how it looks with the back open better, by all mean go forth and use it that way. It'll actually be easier for you because that's one less conversion to be done on this atrocity of a model.

I probably won't be using them, seeing as my only Astartes force right now is a homebrew DA Successor Chapter and the Deathwing list

I just don't get the constant "it needs a closed back" statements being made. Closed back just...wouldn't work with this model. The profile of the back would have to drop down a whole lot more and then widened, just to accommodate an "enclosure" for the Dreadnought.

That's my problem though, I guess.

Mmm, I'm really gonna have to do something in back with arms like the Thunderhawk transporter. The more I think of it, I am thinking of encasing the back, but making it removable with detail inside, almost like a diorama.

Kind of picturing ablative armor protecting it in transit, then blowing off or unwrapping right before deployment.

As to the thrusters, enclosed back etc. One isn't better than the other, some people obvioiusly like the chibi hawk design already, some people want a tail, some people want no thrusters... To each their own, I am actually kind of excited to see what everyone is going to do with it to be frank!

What about a mini hangar bay for a dreadnought? With a fat door that slams down? Sort of like the back of a valk?

With reference as to why the thunderhawk transporter doesn't look silly, it has an end point with engines and stuff. The chibi-hawk just has a rack.

Kanluwen wrote:Doesn't look ridiculous there, does it?

Because it's not open. The underbelly is cavernous, as it's a carry-all, but it still has a front and a rear on either side of that section. The Chibi-Hawk has no such thing. They're completely different to one another.

Even the Republic Gunship Carry-All has a rear:



The hull doesn't just stop like the Chibi-Hawk.

I hate to say this, but maybe Forge World should've handled the Stormraven designing instead?

Think of it as a VTOL Hind Gunship. Same purpose, similar asthetic

I think the perspective is misguiding many people. The Storm Raven actually has quite a long body, then a usual plane tail that is hidden. Imagine the walls on the top being modular so that the wings can be put in front, and you get a blocky but more believable plane.

skrulnik wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:MajorTom:

In all seriousness, you need to take that design of yours to Chapterhouse and the other Third Party groups to see who can make the parts.

Your 'shop job is great. I'd buy that model in a heartbeat. Get someone to make it for all us shlubs who don't know how to convert with plasticard.

I'm with ya.

Don't worry, we're watching... whatever CH does we'll wait till the actual kit is available, to see how much if any is salvagable.